Pics of Boeing 757-- with bulges--

[FogerRox]

right side wing root is just visible--



great shot, showing wing root clearly


The rear of the wing root is just visible


different angle






Clearly a bulge

[FogerRox]

1. same--

http://www.b757.info/Photo%20page/22177%20G-BIKF%20DHL.htm
DHL Paint scheme sets off bulge niclely

http://www.b757.info/Photo%20page/22185%20EC-GCA%20Air%20Europa.htm

http://www.b757.info/Photo%20page/22193%20N601AU%20US%20Airways.htm
US Airways

http://www.b757.info/Photo%20page/22203%20N607AU%20US%20Airways.htm
US Airways just a really good angle

[FogerRox]

2. this is not a 757

[Make7]

3. Neither is this:

Do you just like posting pictures? Or would you care to explain the point to this thread?

-Make7

[drdtroit]

4. Not sure about these

[Make7]

5. I think I see the "bulges" on this one:

-Make7

[LARED]

6. This looks like pre-emptive strike against the pod people

Mayby RogerFox knows the pod people are coming.

[Make7]

7. Pod people? Do you mean Extraterrestrials?

I always thought the pod people were talking about a 767. Perhaps even this one.

:) Make7

[LARED]

8. Some would say yes

Not me though.

Pod people are those that believe there was a "pod" under the wing of the plane that hit the south WTC.

[Make7]

9. Perhaps, they are one in the same. ( nt )

[FogerRox]

11. Perhaps I should go back and watch some videos over again and make sure I

get my planes straight--- er ah hmm

[FogerRox]

10. DOh 4 engines sorry

Simply put-- are these "Pods" like the "Pods" in the WTC video? Which to me seemed more like a reflection , off a bulge, more like these bulges. SOme folks have told me-- After viewing the WTC 757 video, and then pics --- like these--

"Thats not what I saw", "The Pod I saw in the video was much larger" Or "much Longer"

At this point, I am not a pod person-- But I have recently decided that the Pentagon wasnt hit by a 757.

[FogerRox]

12. After further review I apologize

[Make7]

13. That's okay - you don't need to apologize.

I do however suggest when starting a new thread you explain the subject you wish to discuss more thoroughly. Frankly I was wondering why you were bringing up "bulges" on 757's. I thought it might have something new to do with the Pentagon - especially after seeing your post with the Global Hawk.

At least a 757 can be easily confused with a 767. (Hell, I've seen people say that a 747 hit the South Tower.) With so many webpages out there with information on this, I'm sure there are probably a few that do say that a 757 hit the World Trade Center.

No worries.

Besides, drdtroit's post made me laugh out loud - so it was all worth it. :)

From what I've seen, I think the "pod" on Flight 175 was really the wing faring with some interesting reflections happening. (Along with some poor quality video captures.)

-Make7

[FogerRox]

17. reflections

"From what I've seen, I think the "pod" on Flight 175 was really the wing faring with some interesting reflections happening. (Along with some poor quality video captures.)"

YES- I have a video from a PBS bit on Airline bankruptcy-- a bit with a --er ah -- looks like a 757-- taking off-- and relfections move across the plane-- I stopped the video at the point where the reflections are centered on the Wing root area-- it actentuates the
"Pod"--- A friend said it looked similar to the WTC video, I agree.

There is a "pixel bleeding" that occurs-- with camera chips-- that could enlarge the "pod" edge, from 1/2 a pixel, into a whole pixel.

[Kevin Fenton]

14. I understood you completely

The "pods" in the videos are hard to discern and (some of) the pictures you posted show similar "pods" (isn't it supposed to be the fairing?) are normal on similar aircraft.

However, why have you decided the Pentagon wasn't hit by a 757?

[FogerRox]

16. Too small of a hole-- before the roof colapses

After the roof goes down-- the break is too perfect, with a complete lack of structural steel. Which is a violation of building codes-- on a section that was just renovated.

And the history of US MIlitary buildings being protected by anti-missile, missiles, that goes back to the 1960's. One name comes to mind-- NIKE.

"pods"- FAIRING OR WING ROOT-- yes- it is a normal structual feature on most modern airliners-- just that to my dismay the obvious wing root bulge on the 757 is not as obvious on the 767. ERF!

[Kevin Fenton]

19. Hole and roof

The hole is about 90 foot wide, as discussed here:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html
and here:
911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm
Why is 90 foot too small?

The break in the roof is because of the heat expansion joints - the section between two such joints collapsed.

[FogerRox]

26. I am not buying that

[Kevin Fenton]

27. Specifically

What are you not buying? The size of the hole or the heat expansion joints?

[FogerRox]

28. size of the hole-- before the roof falls

THe Mosaic used to reveal the size of the impact hole-- is iffy to me-

If it was so low on the face of the building-- there should have been a furrow-- the odds of flying so low as to hit the building esentially at ground level-- while leaving no furrow-- is iffy at best.
Though I am still thinking it thru-

Though- question about the expansion joints- were they original? From the time of the original construction--

Buildings had expansion joints-- I dont think so-- Expansion joints are a new thing used in steel frame construction with a prefab veneer-- Masonary buildings have been built for 100s of years without expansion joints----

Which brings me to the renovation--- I am I right to assume it was to blast protect the facade?

[Kevin Fenton]

29. Hole, etc.

If you look at this picture you can see the collapsed section and on
the ground floor of the section still standing on the left of the
picture you can see a hole that is about 25 feet long. If you add this
25 feet to the 65 feet of collapsed section you get 90 feet, which
would let a significant amount of the aircraft enter the building.


AFAIK the plane is supposed to have hit the lawn, but only just before
or at the same moment it hit the facade. The furrow should start about
30 feet from the building. However, the first 30 feet aren't really
visible in the photos, most of which were taken from much further
back. Given the plane's speed and the fact the ground wasn't level, it
was a very competent piece of flying.

I went back and checked the expansion joints and found that (oops,
sorry) I'd only got it half right. Only one side of the collapsed area
ends at an expansion joint, not both of them. You can see this very
clearly by looking at the above picture - the expansion joint is
obviously on the left as you look at it; the way the building broke
away so neatly on that side is a dead giveaway.

The expansion joints are definitely original. Figure 2.2 of the ASCE
report contains a diagram of them (page 8 of the pdf):
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
My understanding is that they were put in originally because of the
heat there in the summer and the building's original purpose - it was
supposed to be turned into a munitions store after WWII - nobody then
knew how much the US military apparatus would grow.

The renovation was not just, of even mainly to strengthen the facade -
it included stuff like more escalators - it was basically a general
overhaul. I doubt the facade strengthening had much impact on the
building's performance - thicker glass and a thin layer of teflon is
hardly going to stop a speeding jet; also, the bit that collapsed was
reinforced, the bit that didn't collapse wasn't.

[FogerRox]

30. ahhhhh-- just a second

this loaded up blank--
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

more importantly--

I think you might want to examine the need or requirements, by building code, for expansion joints -- in the 1940s -- or when ever the Pentagon was built-----

Here in the North East there are plenty of 50 to 100 year old concrete stuctures, from a couple of hundred feet long to 1000 or maybe 1200 feet long, not one with expansion joints.

Currently large, new construction is done with a steel frame and a "hung facade", of pre- fab masonary sections. These do include expansion joints.

Of course the thought that an expansion joint was there at the left part of that famous picture-- explains why there was no steel re-rod sticking from the left break.

Buildings of that era were built monolithic as far I know. I'd like to see the original specs- and building code from that era.

If I am right, there should have been steel re-rod sticking from all those wall & Floor sections. There is none----

[Kevin Fenton]

32. Works fine for me

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
It's a .pdf, so you have to have the right software for it. Also, if you have a slow connection, you might have trouble.

Here's a cached html version:
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:8HwDSb6OB28J:fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf+Pentagon+Building+Performance+Report&hl=en&client=firefox-a
Is that better?

There are lots of mentions of expansion joints, for example:
"The collapse initiated at the fifth floor along the building expansion joint, proceeded continuously and was completed within a few seconds."

"This photograph shows that the portion of the building that subsequently collapsed was displaced vertically by approximately 18 in.to 2 ft relative to the building north of the expansion joint"

"The facade was missing on the first floor as far north as column line 8 (the expansion joint is at column line 11), and on the second floor, the facade was missing between column lines 11 and 15."

"The collapsed portion of Ring E extends from an expansion joint on column line 11 to approximately column line 18 on the west facade."

[FogerRox]

33. thanks-- but why expansion joints? IIRC there werent used at that time

[rman]

15. Pods or no pods,

harmless pods or otherwise,
there's no telling what the actual origin and nature of the planes that crashed into the towers is.

For sure the government and intel agencies think that faking a catastrophic incident with a passenger plane is feasible enough
that it has been proposed and considered - in the context of Cuba:

"Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday".
This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood

Nay-sayers would have that such things are so far out there it's ridiculous to even mention it. So much for that.

[FogerRox]

18. The part about blowing up John GLens capsule is nuts-- he was an

ACE in Korea-- 9 kills- wingman for Ted WIlliams, the baseball player.

I dont buy into the "PODS"-- It would be more likely that Saudi Airforce pilots, flew these planes into the WTC towers

[rman]

20. My point is the pods are irrelevant

With or without pods, the planes might have been piloted, or may have been drones. The government and intelligence agencies certainly do buy into the latter kind of scenario, as demonstrated by Operation Northwood.

[MercutioATC]

21. They're NOT irrelevant.

If there were no pods, the planes could be either "real" or "replacement".

If there WERE pods, they could only be "replacement" (the pod would have been seen by too many people before the plane took off on a real commercial flight).

There were no pods.

[rman]

22. Exactly my point;

Even without pods the planes could be either real or replacement.

In other words: the planes could have been replacement - with or without pods.

So the pods are irrelevant wrt the possibility of the planes being drones.

[MercutioATC]

23. But that's exactly the reason they're NOT irrelevant...

Pods are being used as "proof" that the planes were replacements.

There were no pods.

Therefore, that "proof" does not exist.


There could be other evidence that the planes were replacements (none that I've seen), but the pod issue is important. Debunking it removes another baseless argument.

[rman]

24. Absence of pods doesn't prove the planes were not drones.

Also i'm not so sure the presence of pods does prove the planes were drones.

[MercutioATC]

25. Pods would definitely prove the planes were replacements.

Had they been on the "real" plane, they would have been seen before the plane took off. Their NOT being there doesn't prove the planes were the "real" planes by itself but it DOES eliminate one source of "proof" that some here have tried to use.

[rman]

31. Yes it eliminates one source of proof - but it doesn't disprove

the planes being remote controlled.

Here's another piece of evidence in support of the remote control theory. Faking an incident with a passenger plane has in the past been proposed and considered at the highest levels:



Operation Northwoods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood

- Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.